Iredale, R v

Where fresh evidence that should have been disclosed materially supports a defence case and may have affected the jury’s verdict, it should be received under section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968. If that evidence undermines a material feature of the prosecution case, the conviction is unsafe and must be quashed.

The appellant was convicted at Liverpool Crown Court of unlawful wounding after a trial in which he relied on self-defence. The prosecution contended that the complainant had been struck on the doorstep, and relied on the asserted absence of blood in the appellant’s hallway.

An earlier application for leave to appeal had been refused. The Criminal Cases Review Commission referred the case under section 9 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995 after a previously undisclosed police photograph showed blood on the hallway floor. The Crown accepted that the photograph ought to have been disclosed and might have affected the jury’s decision.

The central issue was whether the fresh evidence should be received under section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 and rendered the conviction unsafe.

1. Appeal allowed; conviction quashed. The court received the previously undisclosed photograph as fresh evidence under section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968.

2. The photograph showed blood on the hallway floor shortly after the incident. It therefore supported the appellant’s trial case that the complainant had entered the house and that the appellant had acted in self-defence only after retreating into the hallway.

3. The absence of blood in the hallway had been a material element of the prosecution case. It had also been highlighted in the summing-up and in the earlier refusals of leave to appeal. The photograph undermined that element and could also have affected the appellant’s evidence about the presence of blood.

4. The Crown conceded both that the photograph ought to have been disclosed before trial and that its disclosure might well have affected the jury’s verdict. The court accepted that the fresh evidence rendered the conviction unsafe. The prosecution did not seek a retrial because of the lapse of time and the fact that the sentence had been served.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — On a reference by the Criminal Cases Review Commission under section 9 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995, the appeal was allowed and the conviction quashed: [2006] EWCA Crim 646.
• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — On 23 October 2001, a differently constituted Full Court refused the renewed application for an extension of time and leave to appeal against conviction.
• Single Judge — Previously refused leave to appeal against conviction.
• Liverpool Crown Court — On 4 May 2000, convicted the appellant of unlawful wounding; on 2 June 2000, imposed 180 hours’ community service and ordered compensation.